Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong!
Why did God create the tree of knowledge?
But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong!
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
:sigh: Okay, once more, into the breach:
That is meaningless. What is a "perfect" human?
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
Er... didn't I just?
Piscivore said:
But you don't know, Iacchus! Fercrissakes you even used "backbiting" wrong!
Twice. He really doesn't have any idea what any of the words he uses mean.
Which is a shame, it's probably the only major roadblock in his path to becoming the sophist he's always wished he could be. Funny how rampant ignorance prevents so many dreams from being realized.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
The really tragic aspect is that it is deliberatly self-inflicted. He's said before that he feels that one must be as ignorant as a child in order to approach god.
Unless he's just making excuses for his lack of education and trying to turn it around to mean he has some "deeper" wisdom. But since that prospect is demonstrably and plainly false, that being true would just be sad.
Unless he's just making excuses for his lack of education and trying to turn it around to mean he has some "deeper" wisdom. But since that prospect is demonstrably and plainly false, that being true would just be sad.
Agammamon said:
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
INV
The scripture that tells us that Adam was not deceived [assuming you were familiar with it before making the asserttion you just did] cannot and should not be ignored as you are attempting to do. Not being deceived means that he was well-informed and knew that everything Satan said was a lie.
Ignoring scriptures that way is what gives Evies, Athies and Agnies the ammo to point out supposed discrepancies when in fact the problem does not reside in the Bible itself but with those who choose and pick and ignore to their heart's content because of having a disintegrated concept of the Bible content.
BTW
Adam knew what the sex organs were for before he ate of the fruit. He had seen animals using theirs. He had been told to use his in the same way in order to populate the earth.
Genesis 9:7
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
INV
Adam, being a man, was created to feel natural manly physical attraction for his wife Eve both as a gift from God and as an incentive for procreation. So there was nothing sinful in the normal attraction between a man and his wife. Which leads to the conclusion that it was their own unnatural thoughts toward one another's bodies that was now causing them to be self conscious and so they sought to cover themselves in order to prevent the now involuntary wrong thoughts from becoming annoying.
They also knew that they were in violation of law and that their nakedness had been intended to be enjoyed without those selfish thoughts. In short, a bad conscience became operative.
God does not create mindless morons.
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
Perhaps the answer may be found in the words of God's servant Bill Clinton.
"Because I could."
"Because I could."
Radrook said:
Actually, in this case, it doesn't mean he knew anything about Satan. As far as I have ever heard, the story is that he never had any contact with the serpent, he blames his eating the fruit on Eve asking him to.
Gen 3:6 - And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
At this point, the serpent has already left the picture. Furthermore:
Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Adam's story never includes the serpent. He is not the one decieved, because he wasn't there. Eve had to take the fruit to him, he was never the guy on the scene.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
There is perfect support for the idea that Satan did not decieve Adam - as you say. There is no support that I can find for the idea that this is because he was "well-informed."
Abdul Alhazred said:
Because I could:
I tortured someone to death
Ordered the My Lie Massacre
Raped fifty women
Abused my children
Destroyed private property
Was cruel to animals
Lied my way to success
Robbed a bank and murdered the teller
Slapped my invalid mother around.
All because--well, because--ummmmmm I could?
Wow!
The problem is that most people who can do these things don't not because they can't but--ummmm but simply because they won't.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
No, you said "perfect" is "the standard by which all things are measured" - so measure a human by this standard for me. Or a tree, or a car, or anything you like.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Iacchus said:
How does an imperfect human relate to the standard, though? Are there humans that are "more perfect"? In what ways?
I can say that "foofle" is the standard I measure with, and all things are not foofle. I've said nothing useful.
Iacchus said:
How?
A Question of Meaning
Except maybe what we need to ask ourselves is, given the fact that we have such large brains, does the brain merely manufacture meaning or, does it acknowledge the meaning which is already there? Or both? In other words is there something truly universal about meaning that exists outside of the realm of human experience, of which the human mind is merely the receptacle?
If so, I would suggest this is where we look for perfection, which is then perceivable through its influx into our minds.
Except maybe what we need to ask ourselves is, given the fact that we have such large brains, does the brain merely manufacture meaning or, does it acknowledge the meaning which is already there? Or both? In other words is there something truly universal about meaning that exists outside of the realm of human experience, of which the human mind is merely the receptacle?
If so, I would suggest this is where we look for perfection, which is then perceivable through its influx into our minds.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Re: A Question of Meaning
Some good questions there!
The brain looks for patterns and associations it is one of the things that it is designed to do. Some of the patterns percieved may have replicable validity in the external world, some will have only personal meaning.
Meaning however is solely a human attribute with no valid point of reference to the external world.
Perfection is dull, it is stasis.
Iacchus said:
Some good questions there!
The brain looks for patterns and associations it is one of the things that it is designed to do. Some of the patterns percieved may have replicable validity in the external world, some will have only personal meaning.
Meaning however is solely a human attribute with no valid point of reference to the external world.
Perfection is dull, it is stasis.